R.G.-R. v. S.R.

1

R. G.-R. v. S. R.^[*]

No. AC 45572

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

July 9, 2024

Argued March 13, 2024

Procedural History

Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Prestley, J., rendered judgment dissolving the marriage and granting certain other relief in accordance with the parties' separation agreement; thereafter, the court, Nastri, J., issued an order of temporary custody of the minor child to the Commissioner of Children and Families, granted the motions for contempt filed by the defendant and the guardian ad litem, and denied the plaintiff's motion for contempt and the plaintiff appealed to this court; subsequently, the court, Moukawsher, J., awarded the defendant sole legal and physical custody of the minor child; thereafter the court, Moukawsher, J., denied the plaintiff permission to file a motion for reconsideration, and the plaintiff filed an amended appeal. Appeal dismissed in part; reversed in part; further proceedings.

Brandon B. Fontaine, with whom was Meaghan E. Collins, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Richard A. Rochlin, for the appellee (defendant).

Alvord, Cradle and Westbrook, Js.

OPINION

CRADLE, J.

In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the plaintiff, R. G.-R., appeals from the judgments of the trial court awarding the defendant, S. R., sole legal and physical custody of their minor child. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges postjudgment orders made by the court on May 26 and October 26, 2022. As to the May 26, 2022 judgment, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by granting the defendant's motion to modify custody and motions for contempt filed by the defendant and the guardian ad litem, and denying a motion for contempt that she filed. As to the October 26, 2022 judgment, she claims that her constitutional right to procedural due process was violated when the court modified custody without affording her notice and a hearing and that the court failed to base the modification on the best interest of the minor child or a substantial change in circumstances. We dismiss as moot the plaintiff's appeal from the May 26, 2022 judgment, except the portions of the appeal that challenge the court's contempt rulings, which we affirm in part and reverse in part. We also dismiss as moot the plaintiff's appeal from the October 26, 2022 judgment.

The following procedural history is relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The parties' marriage was dissolved on January 7, 2013. Pursuant to that judgment, the parties would share joint legal and physical custody of the minor child.

Beginning in June, 2016, the plaintiff began to levy accusations against the defendant claiming, inter alia, sexual abuse by him of the minor child.^[1] These allegations prompted the involvement of the police, the Department of Children and Families (department) and the court. Although the plaintiff's allegations ultimately were unsubstantiated by the department, the ensuing investigations of those allegations contributed to the alienation of the minor child from his father. In May, 2017, the court ordered reunification therapy between the defendant and the minor child.

On May 22, 2018, the parties agreed to have a clinical psychologist perform a comprehensive custody evaluation and to sign all necessary releases and to cooperate with the designated psychologist. On May 25, 2018, the court, Simon, J., appointed Stephen Humphrey, PhD, a clinical psychologist, to perform that custody evaluation. As a result of that evaluation, Humphrey opined, inter alia, that the plaintiff's ''vehement and intense antipathy toward [the defendant] . . . is the primary cause of [the minor child's] fierce and unequivocal rejection of his father.''

In March, 2019, after almost three full years had elapsed without the defendant seeing the minor child, the court, Simon, J., again ordered reunification therapy for the defendant and the minor child. At that time, the court warned that it would strongly consider removing the minor child from the plaintiff's custody if she did not fully cooperate with the reunification therapy.

In October, 2019, the parties filed competing applications for an emergency ex parte order of custody of the minor child, which were both denied. They also both filed motions for modification seeking sole custody of the minor child. Also in October, 2019, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant from having the child continue with therapy. In November, 2019, the defendant moved to hold the plaintiff in contempt for failing to bring the child to therapy.

On May 26, 2022, after seventeen days of trial, the court, Nastri, J., issued a memorandum of decision, wherein it decided several of the parties' pending motions.^[2] The court found, inter alia, that the plaintiff ''hates [the defendant] with every fiber of her being. She has done everything in her power to prevent [the minor child] from having any relationship with his father. She has manipulated the court, [the department], therapists, medical providers and the police by twisting facts, telling half-truths, making threats and withholding key information, all in her single-minded effort to prevent [the defendant] from having a relationship with his son. She has also treated clear and unambiguous court orders as suggestions, completely ignoring them when it suited her purpose.'' The court explained: ''[The minor child] has a fundamental right to have a relationship with his father. He will never have that relationship or even a chance to have it, as long as he is in [the plaintiff's] custody. It is in [the minor child's] best interest for him to be in an environment in which [the plaintiff] does not have the opportunity to manipulate him or thwart his relationship with his father.'' The court concluded that the minor child was in ''immediate physical danger from his surroundings'' and that ''[c]ontinuation in [the plaintiff's] home is contrary to [his] welfare.'' Because the minor child had not been with the defendant in nearly six years, the court found that it would not be in his best interest to suddenly be placed in the defendant's custody and, accordingly, issued an order of temporary custody placing the minor child in the care and custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner). The court also granted two motions for contempt filed by the defendant, finding that the plaintiff wilfully violated a clear and unambiguous order as to each motion, but declined to impose sanctions as to either contempt finding. The court also granted two motions for contempt filed against the plaintiff by the minor child's guardian ad litem. The court declined to impose sanctions as to one of those motions, but, as to the other, ordered the plaintiff to pay her portion of the guardian ad litem's fees. The court also denied a motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff.^[3] The plaintiff appealed from that May 26, 2022 judgment.

On July 25, 2022, the juvenile court, Taylor, J., vacated the May 26, 2022 order placing the minor child in the custody of the commissioner, finding that he was not at imminent risk of physical harm. The court returned the matter to the appropriate court for further action.

On July 28, 2022, the defendant filed an application for an emergency ex parte order and a motion to modify custody seeking sole custody of the minor child. On that same day, the court, Nastri, J., granted the defendant's application for an emergency ex parte order and ordered that he would have ''sole legal custody'' and that the plaintiff would not have visitation. The plaintiff was granted permission to file an emergency motion to vacate that order.

On August 10, 2022, the court, Moukawsher, J., held a hearing on the emergency motions and issued a decision the next day, wherein it found that there was no basis for an emergency order granting sole custody to the defendant and vacated the ex parte order effective August 20, 2022, when the child would be returned to the plaintiff.

On August 18, 2022, the court, Moukawsher, J., held a hearing on the issue of where the minor child would attend secondary school. Following the hearing, the court issued a decision wherein it ''rescind[ed] its order that [the child] be returned to [the plaintiff]'' and ordered that the child would attend boarding school in Rhode Island and would remain in the defendant's custody until leaving for school. The court ordered that the plaintiff would have no contact with the minor child for the first five weeks of school and that the defendant would have sole legal custody of the minor child during that period. The court also ordered that the defendant not contact the minor child for those five weeks, but that the minor child could ''communicate about what he needs with [the defendant] or with the [guardian ad litem] and they may respond.'' The court indicated that the orders were temporary and a ''test of both parents.'' The court advised: ''The court will soon issue other orders to help this along. The parties will need a plan for what happens after the first five weeks at school. The court will enter new orders in the coming weeks. In the meantime, it will be watching as best it can through the [guardian ad litem]. Any party sabotaging [the minor child's] launch into life will have the court to answer to. Its next orders will be shaped by it.''

On October 19, 2022, the court, Moukawsher, J., ordered the plaintiff to file a proposal regarding reunification therapy and ordered the defendant to file a response. The plaintiff filed her proposal on October 25, 2022 in which she asserted that reunification therapy was unnecessary and asked for ''equal parenting time...